Is the Book of Mormon a “Translation” or a “Revelation”?

FAIR - Faithful Answers, Informed Response

Подписаться 32 тыс.

Просмотров 1,5 тыс.

50% 1

"Is the Book of Mormon a 'Translation' or a 'Revelation'?" by Stephen Smoot at FAIR's 2023 Defending the Book of Mormon Virtual Conference.
More information about the conference: www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/c...
Donate to FAIR: www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/do...

Опубликовано:

6 фев 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 34

@mikez1114 5 месяцев назад

Joe said was a translation. Enough with apologists making excuses.

@jeremims9044 5 месяцев назад

He also said the urim and thummin were interpreters.

@mikez1114 5 месяцев назад

I see. You are going to disregard the eyewitness, and Joseph Smith history so you can have your own private interpretation of the word "interpreters."@@jeremims9044

@thatsnotwords 4 месяца назад

As Smoot points out at 34:56, Joseph Smith also referred to the process as being one of revelation.

@mikez1114 4 месяца назад

Again, an apologist explains away the simple and clear words where Joe said it was a translation. @@thatsnotwords

@thatsnotwords 4 месяца назад

Pointing to historical evidence that contradicts the strong claim that Joseph Smith only ever said that he translated the Book of Mormon does not, in my view, constitute "explaining away" anything. At the very least, it should provide nuance to what he might've meant when speaking of the process as translation in other contexts. Arguably, though, it acts as a logical defeater to the strong claim of critics that Smith self-reported a translation-only approach. In any case, Smith's statement in this instance can't simply be ignored or downplayed, it must be dealt with by those making the counter-claim.

@wellsjdan 5 месяцев назад

what was the quote about seeing the words appear in the rock /seer stone that once written they moved on? How does that fit here? who said that?

@anichols2760 5 месяцев назад

Excellently delivered.

@Englishbob1955 5 месяцев назад

Excellent presentation. Very informative. Sadly, because of the interchangeability of the words, it creates something of a fog. Perhaps this is due to the change in the use of language over time rather than the understanding of the language as used at the time.

@brettmajeske3525 5 месяцев назад

It is silly for modern readers to assume that language has remained the same over the past 200 years.

@marksandsmith6778 5 месяцев назад

Option 3 Fabrication.

@robnblin1 5 месяцев назад

Surely it was an interpretation not a translation. He used the “interpreters” besides which he couldn’t speak ancient languages so he either did it through revelation or made it all up. I prefer to believe the former, and the book has helped me become closer to and better acquainted with Christ, so alls good.

@taylorcleblanc 5 месяцев назад

This so-called nomenclature has changed within the church over time. The same as seer stone vs urrim nd thummim use.

@johns1834 5 месяцев назад

Mormons are some of the nicest, most sincere people I know and many Christians would do well to emulate their zeal for the spirit and family values. Sadly, LDS gospel is a sad travesty of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ and most mormon have no idea Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity and teaches men can achieve salvation by their own good works and have the option to worship false gods of their choice, like Buddha or a ‘Great Architect of the Universe’ as equal to or greater than Jesus Christ. Smith was strongly opposed freemasonry and secret combinations in early LDS history, but Smith would become a Freemason himself in 1842 and soon after came up with the crazy idea Jesus and Lucifer/satan are brothers, then implemented the ‘secret’ temple ceremonies, handshakes, dress, symbols, and covenants, which are eerily similar to the ‘cult like’ satanic Freemasonry secret ceremonies, handshakes, dress, symbols, and covenants.

@anichols2760 5 месяцев назад

Isn't it wonderful that we are all entitled to our opinion.

@anichols2760 5 месяцев назад

I would say that Christianity that arose from the ashes of Christs church after it went apostate, following the apostles death, is a travesty of the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

@johns1834 5 месяцев назад

@@anichols2760 Yep. Exactly when did Christ Church go apostate? Mormons have one to as do the thousands of other 'false' beliefs, like baptist, calvinist, etc. all claiming to have the truth and all claiming the other do not. Just not possible. The truth is simply, Jesus built one (1) Church and promised to be with us until the end of the age. Jesus did not abandon his flock twice, like Joseph Smith says. So you either believe Jesus Christ or not.

@MichaelGMoney 5 месяцев назад

@johns1834 well it went apostate slowly over time. Every time there were new creeds introduced, it was NOT found within the Bible, but they were interpretations if man filtered through philosophy. That is what the great apostasy was. That's why we deny all of the creeds, they're all incorrect because they aren't found in the Bible.

@johns1834 5 месяцев назад

@@MichaelGMoney The creeds simply sum up what had always been understood and taught and DID NOT introduce new teachings or ideas. The creeds were in response to the many different heresies of the time. The Bishops of the Catholic Church canonized the books of the Bible in 392 AD around the same time as the Nicene Creed. Anyway, you say the apostate slowly occurred over time? When exactly? Most lds church teachings says it happened almost immediately after the death of the last Apostle in the old world, and it took a few hundred more years before it occurred in the Americas. The Bible never says there will be a 'total' apostasy.

@BenMcrea61 5 месяцев назад

The English language translation of the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph Smith - so it was both.

@gregbriggs4540 5 месяцев назад

correct. It was both. It was translated from the plates but being an unlearned youth and untrained in any such skill plus the book of Mormon being recorded in an unknown language had to be done by revelation.

@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp 5 месяцев назад

Quite simple, really.

@FastEddieDMD 5 месяцев назад

It was neither. Smith with his friends wrote the book over several years taking ideas that were prominent in the area at the time. A large percentage is simply plagiarized from the bible and Adam Clarke's bible commentary. It is unquestionly an early 19th century work. No scholars outside of mormonism would say that this is an ancient work.

@atari_guy 5 месяцев назад

I'd be really interested in knowing which parts of the Book of Mormon you think were from the Clarke commentary?

@jss1724 2 месяца назад

NOPE.

@RichardHolmes-ll8ii 2 месяца назад

Where have you been? Your anti-Mormon crowd know that they cannot prove the Book of Mormon as a fraudulent work. This is the reason they then turned their attention towards the Book of Abraham. Though however the Egyptologist opinions against Joseph Smith backfired. The Egyptologist opinions against Joseph Smith backfired due to the false assumption that you're supposed to compare the facsimiles to the explanation and expect correlation. You're supposed to compare the facsimiles to the Book of Abraham to show contrast between God and Satan. In other words, the Egyptologist opinions against Joseph Smith were debunked due to comparing the wrong thing to the wrong thing. Joseph Smith was right, the Egyptologists were wrong. Latter Day Saint scripture stands up to scrutiny.

@TrebizondMusic-cm6fp 5 месяцев назад

I love the irony that the critics who accuse us of being stupid and emotionally manipulated are using emotional manipulation techniques to try to get us to accept their stupid arguments.

@anichols2760 5 месяцев назад

Absolutely